Jeremy Hurd

School Law

Case Review #4

3-15-04

 

I.  Origins

 

A.       Name, location, and date of the case.

The name of the case is Indiana State Teachers Association v Board of School Commissioners of the City of Indianapolis (No. 96-1792).  The case resided in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and was argued on September 20, 1996 and was decided on December 2, 1996.

 

B.       Level of Court that issued the decision.

The court issuing the decision in the case was the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

 

C.       Level of control of the school over the conditions of the case.

  The level of control over the conditions of the case for the schools themselves is limited, but it does pertain to the legal authority of the school board.  The School Board was directly involved with this issue regarding the claim of denial of the Indiana State Teachers Association of the equal protection of the laws by refusing to allow the non-teaching staff of the Indianapolis public schools to elect a collective bargaining representative.  The decision in this case pertains to the relationship between a state teachers association and local school board policies.

 

II.    Analysis of Conditions

 

A.      What area of school law does this case relate to or involve.  How?

The area of school law that this case involves is the area of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.  The teacher association claimed that since the school board is the "state" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the refusal of allowing the non-certified employees collective bargaining, that it was a violation of the equal protection clause due to discrimination of the group.

B.        What are the major arguments for the plaintiffs?

 

The Indiana State Teachers Association claimed that the school board had denied the association the equal protection of the laws by refusing to allow the non-teaching staff of the Indianapolis public schools to elect a collective bargaining representative. The complaint tried to bring the case within the   

   orbit of the clause by arguing that the non-teacher employees of  Indiana's   

   public schools were not covered by the National Labor Relations Act or any 

   counterpart labor relations statute of Indiana. The association wanted to 

   represent these non-teacher employees and it achieved support from a number 

               of them. The school board refused to hold an election for a collective bargaining 

               representative and the association charged that the refusal of the election 

               discriminates between two similarly situated entities and therefore--since the 

school board is the "state" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus violates the equal protection clause unless a justification for the 

   discrimination is shown. 

 

C.       What are the major arguments for the defendants?

 

The school board argues that the association’s claims are not valid because it has not alleged discrimination against a class--blacks, aliens, children, railroads,

whatever. They also claimed that the association and the AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) local, belong to the same class, that of labor unions interested in representing public-school employees. The Indianapolis school board had signed a succession of contracts with a local of the AFSCME appointing the local the exclusive bargaining representative of the school system's non-teacher employees.  Thus, the school board did not see any need to associate the teacher and non-teacher employees with the same collective bargaining rights.

 

D.        What was the decision made in this case?

 

The court decided in favor of the defendants in this case.  The court concluded that the non-teaching employees might be better off with competition for their collective bargaining representative, rather than being stuck with the AFSCME local.  In addition, they concluded that the teachers might be better off too, because state law forbids them to strike, but if a teachers union such as the Indiana State Teachers Association represents the blue-collar workers in the same schools it may be able to use the threat to call them out on strike to extract concessions for the teachers. So, there would be a great conflict of interest.  They also claimed that the Association was not in the same position as the union that received the benefit from which the Association had sought. They also said that the Association failed to alleging that the certified teachers and non-certified staff were situated in all relevant respects. If the Association could prove that they were equal in all aspects, then the burden would shift to the state to show that their situations were not really identical.  In conclusion, the Association did not provide enough evidence to place burden upon the state and the decision of the lower court was affirmed.

 

III.                      Personal Reaction

 

A.      What is your personal reaction to the decision made in this case?

 

I think that teacher unions and non-certified staff should be represented differently.  There would be no advantage for non-certified staff to have the burden of certified staff issues in regards to contract negotiations and the potential of a strike.  In the event of a strike, non-certified staff would be forced to take the side of the teachers regarding issues that may not pertain to them.  The difference comes where most non-certified staff are payed by the hour at a certain rate, while a school gives most teachers contracts.  In addition come other teacher union issues that do not pertain to non-certified staff such as credit requirements for re-certification, benefits, teacher reviews by principals, and etc.  I find no reason that if a teacher union were to strike, that non-certified staff should be expected to stick up for them, even though the situation may not pertain to them.  Separate representation is the fair way to approach this issue.  In regards to the decision by the court, I believe that they were right in there decision.  The state had given non-certified staff a representing body to handle their labor issues, and did so knowing that there were substantial differences in labor issues regarding these workers in schools compared to certified teachers.  It would be a disservice to both sides to combine their issues because there would be a conflict of interest in the situation.  If either side had a labor dispute, the both would be different.  I agree with the court and also agree that Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause does not have any formal basis in this case and in fact, separate representation is needed and the fairest way of representing both sides.

  

B.        What are the implications of this case for you as a future school

administrator?

 

Issues such as this really reach state and school board levels before they reach an individual school.  The involvement as a principal would be fairly minimal.  I could represent my view on the issue maybe, but the teacher union is a separate labor entity from any decision that I may make regarding their issues.  Many labor issues are worked with the administration of the school system as a whole, not with an individual school.  Regarding non-certified staff, the same would be true.  Labor disputes is something that we have not read about yet, but I do think that these are issues to be worked out between the labor representing body of both teacher and non-certified staff and the state and local school boards.